Is changing donation laws for Reform retrospectively unfair or politically justified?

They are trying to block it with new amendments. Bar unions.

As to your last para, we all know that Labour would still try to block it. Those 14 years in the wilderness really did make them all bitter and twisted.

This seems to mention new amendments which are caps but also a Labour ask from some for union exemption. Consistent with earlier posts.

These are proposed amendments to the bill on 1 Sept

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-views/representation-people-bill/representation-people-bill-briefing-donation-caps-amendments

You know, I contemplated starting a thread celebrating Labour’s successes in government…

I'm not asking you to post for me. Tbh, if it was really "for me" then you probably wouldn't post at all. 🤣

You can post whatever you like, within talk guidelines. Obviously. But I can post whatever I like within talk guidelines too. And that means that I can continue to challenge your claims and expose the flaws in your arguments. Apologies if that is annoying for you. But I am not posting for your satisfaction any more than you are posting for mine.

Anyway, this discussion is getting rather tedious now as we keep going round in circles. You carry on dodging questions and presenting unfounded opinions as fact if that's what suits you. I'll carry on challenging your posts as I see fit.

I know from previous discussions that you always like to have the last word, so I will let you come back with whatever new iteration you might have for what you've already said, and we'll leave it there, shall we?

Yes they could be talking about how great this will be rather than all focused on whether I’ll transcribe HoL / radio for them when there’s a link below.

But TBF, that isn't what this thread is about - the thread is about unprecedentedly large political donations from billionaires, the legislation to cap such donations when they come from overseas and whether that cap should be applied from the date the changes were announced in order to prevent a sudden influx of foreign money before the legislation comes into force.

It isn't a thread about John Healey, or the economy or Labour's record on the economy. It isn't even a Labour vs Reform thread - because as it's been pointed out numerous times, the cap on individual donations from overseas will apply equally to all political parties - as will the date it counts from. But the thread seems to keep getting turned into general Labour bashing - and from what I have seen the only real explanation for that is that no one seems to have any kind of moral or ethical justifcation for these unpredecently large donations from billionaires other than to shout, 'but look over there, Labour are bad'.

Yep. I’m obviously posting for me not you, so if it’s not what you’re after find others who are, or don’t.

Yes they could be talking about how great this will be rather than all focused on whether I’ll transcribe HoL / radio for them when there’s a link below.

You seem to be missing my point.

I do think many of your posts consist of unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as facts, and I also think that you frequently evade direct questions which you don't want to answer. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to post whatever you wish, and in whatever style you like. I cannot force you to engage with discussions in good faith, nor can I force you to provide evidence for the opinions which you present as fact.

However, I can at least help to expose your posts for what they are, and draw attention to claims which clearly cannot be substantiated and/or questions which are persistently avoided. It isn't my preferred approach, as I would far rather engage in an informed and meaningful debate, but given your unwillingness to back up your own arguments, asking the unanswered questions remains the best strategy for highlighting the flaws in your arguments.

Anyway, I get it - you don't want to change your approach. So you carry on doing you and I'll carry on doing me.

If the posts are such poor quality and others are way better then feel free to not engage. I’m happy with the level of commitment as is, there’s obviously no way I’m doing as asked below. But if you can find someone who will then do that.

Why are you so eager to tell me not to read your posts?

Like I said, scrolling on past doesn't work for me because then your unsubstantiated claims are left unchallenged.

You don't get to dictate how I interact with your posts. You do have several options though.

• You can carry on evading requests for evidence if you wish. I will draw my own conclusions and your avoidance will tell its own story for anyone reading the thread.
• You can scroll past my posts and pretend that they aren't here. Effectively that would just be another way of evading questions, and the impact would be broadly comparable.
• You could stop presenting your opinions and assumptions as fact so that your posts are at least more honest.
• You could actually engage with the challenge in good faith, be accountable for the assertions that you make and back up your opinions with actual evidence (if you have any). This would make your posts a lot more credible, but I fully acknowledge that it might be more difficult.

The option that isn't open to you is to tell me to scroll on by and stop holding you accountable for what you've written. Or rather, you can keep telling me to do that, but I don't have to obey.

Ok I feel this is more in your mind than mine. But whatever just don’t read. Go for the much better posts, there are so many. Enjoy.

Unfortunately they can’t censor the dire economic data or adverse news flow.

The budget should prove interesting….

You won’t get anywhere. The refusal to substantiate claims has always been the modus operandi.

Yes, I understand that most of your own posts are just opinions. Thankfully, there are some really well informed posters on MN who are able to evidence their points much more effectively, and that makes for an infinitely more interesting and purposeful debate.

Thank you for acknowledging that you avoid some - I would suggest many - of the questions that are posed to you by other posters. The reasons for your avoidance are clear. And as I said, it's fine to avoid questions which you are unwilling and/or unable to answer, as your participation in the discussion is entirely voluntary. What you don't get to do is insist that I scroll on without at least asking you to justify the claims that you are making. It is your right to evade, but it is my right to challenge any unevidenced claims that you may make.

Yep it’s fairly pointless the same posters have already decided.